COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION HP PWD Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-State against the impugned Award dated 28.08.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Kullu (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference Court'), in Reference Petition No.37 of 2009, titled as Prem Chand vs. Collector Land Acquisition (Central Zone) HP.PWD & another, whereby the Reference Court has enhanced the value of the houses assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector by 40%, on the ground that the assessment by the Land Acquisition Collector, was made on the basis of HP Scheduled Rates 1999, whereas the acquisition of the houses, was undertaken in the year 2005.

(2.) It is an admitted fact that two houses of respondent-claimant alongwith land were acquired for public purpose i.e. construction of Sainj Bye Pass road in Phatti Dhangi, by invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) after issuing notification dated 02.04.2005 under Section 4 of the Act, which was lastly published in Raj Patra on 13.06.2005. Land Acquisition Collector had determined the value of the land by passing Award No.1/2006 dated 27.05.2006, whereas houses and structures belonging to some landowners, including respondent-claimant, were not included therein due to non-receipt of the assessment of the acquired houses/structures from the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as 'HP.PWD'). After receiving the assessment of value of the acquired houses/structures, Land Acquisition Collector had announced Award No.2 dated 12.01.2007, whereby valuation of two houses of respondent-landowner was estimated as Rs.3,76,441/- and Rs.16,02,370/- vide valuation reports Ex.RW.1/A- and Ex.RW.1/G respectively by applying H.P.S.R. 1999 of HP.PWD.

(3.) Reference Court, after referring judgments passed by this High Court, has allowed addition of 40% of the value of the houses determined by the appellants on the ground that valuation, by appellants, was made on the basis of cost of wages and material prevailing in the year 1999, whereas the acquisition of the houses in Reference was undertaken in the year 2005. There is a gap of five-six years between the years 1999 to 2005 and even if five years' gap is taken into consideration and hike @ 10% of the cost of wages and material is considered, then also, up to the year 2004 there would have been enhancement of more than 60% of the value arrived at on the basis of H.P.S.R. 1999 as if valuation in 1999 is taken as 100 then after adding 10% in cost of first year, value in second year will be Rs.110/- and 10% thereof to be added therein for value in third year will be 11 and accordingly 10% of third year would be 12.1 which will give value in four year 133.1 and 10% thereof will be 13.31 and this value in fourth year i.e. in 2003 as Rs.146.41 and by adding 10% thereof i.e. 14.64 in it value in fifth year i.e. in 2004 would be 161.05 which comes 61.05% higher than basic value of the year 1999. Whereas, Reference Court has only enhanced 40% of the value, which comes to yearly enhancement of about 7% and it appears to be genuine and reasonable. Therefore, on this count, no interference is warranted.